Talk:Michael Savage/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 6 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Radio guy

Is this that radio talk-show guy who sounds like Rush Limbaugh on even more speed? I listened to his show once--its main point seemed to be that All Liberals Are Inherently Evil. --Gulik 12:50, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Having spent the last half hour working on the article Dyke I guess that I'm not in the best position to comment, but why is this person noteworthy?--Bob_M (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Because he's PATRIOTIC! He ...um.... Is REALLY REALLY PATRIOTIC! Because HeartOfGold says so! (Yeah, I dunno either.) --Gulik 13:04, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

He's pretty well known for bringing legal threats to bear against detractors, especially those organizing boycotts. --Kels 13:05, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Oh, and he's also virulently anti-gay, and anything similar. I know he's had run-ins with the HRC before. --Kels 13:07, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Is "notability" a threshold that content on RW has to cross? I'm not being entirely Socratic here, because I don't keep up with all the policy pages. I did think, however, that being "rational" was more important here than being noteworthy.

Perhaps I used "noteworthy" too freely. My real question at the time was, "Why does this article exist?" Which has been sort-of answered. BTW I don't think that "rationality" would merit an inclusion by itself. My brother is quite rational but I'm not going to write an article about him.--Bob_M (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I do see what you're saying there. I'm curious, though, if even that threshold matters to the site. I mean, I appreciate you saying you wouldn't write it, but if you did, would the administration here care? There's a lot of talk about allowing vandalism (granted, in a laboratory-kinda way), eating pizza, doing what's fun etc. . . and a few KB of data aren't going to cost them much of anything, soooOOOOooo...

Prolly a better place to have this conversation, but it's an interesting question to see fleshed out. Aziraphale 16:22, 25 May 2007 (CDT) <-fleshed out plenty, thanks.

As for him being Limbaugh on speed, I'd say that a "criticisms" section would certainly be tolerable. Heart of Gold has, in other discussions, had no problem with that sort of thing so I doubt you'd be in for an edit war. That said, he also has expressed a preference (and I think it's a good one) for sectional back-and-forth, rather than refuting on a sentence-by-sentence basis. Sound fair? Aziraphale 13:07, 25 May 2007 (CDT) <-don't look behind the curtain, nothing to see here...

Savage is noteworthy in real life, and has an article at WP, but starting an article here is an experiment. He is hated on the left, and is probably at least as colorful as Coulter. Heart♥Gold ^tx 13:09, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Maybe we should have a category for these folks-- right-wing pundits, or something. He belongs on about the same level as Hannity, Rush, some of the others. Notable, but shrill compared to the more mainstream conservatives. Flippin^;-) 13:09, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

(unindenting) "Pundit" perhaps? I think it would be over-stratifying to have two separate categories for right-wing and left-wing and, besides, some centrists might become flashpoints for arguments over which category they go in..

As an aside, I hate the word "pundit" but I'm not sure what a better term would be - public commentator? Opinionist? Bleh.

Heart of Gold, would you mind describing your experiment? I have a guess, but I'm curious if I'm right or not. Or, would describing it in public taint the results? Aziraphale 14:08, 25 May 2007 (CDT) <-not a pundit

"Professional Loudmouth"? --Gulik 14:11, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Expansion

Seems like this article needs to be flushed out a bit. I would also recommend, rather than have the opinion "patriotic", changing the wording to something like "considered by his listeners to be patriotic", or "considers himself to be patriotic", given that the definition of patriotic is not alway agreed upon in this context. --PalMD^-Talk 14:13, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Just an aside, but isn't the phrase "fleshed out a bit"? What is this obsession you have with potty references? --Kels 14:15, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

What kind of doctor are you, exactly? ;-) Flippin^;-)

Mmmm...boooty...--PalMD^-Talk 14:19, 25 May 2007 (CDT) Actually, the worst part is we (my colleagues and I) always use food metaphors to describe physical findings, as in "the hemorrhoid looked a lot like a ripe plum". Or maybe that's a simile. --PalMD^-Talk 14:20, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

...don't even get me started on the term "expansion" in this context. --Kels 14:21, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Got quotes?

Anyone got some juicy, verifiable quotes from this guy? --Gulik 03:05, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

We listened to a couple minutes of his show once—once. He said, "Hey, I won't tolerate Catholic-bashing on this show." Not very juicy, though. I didn't even know he was a madman until I read this article. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:52, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, there's more, lots more, where that came from. Rational Ed^evidence 14:55, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

From an environmental point of view...

why would someone that makes a left of center website call someone who is an herbalist a wingnut and quack. I thought leftists were into that whole new agey use earth stuff. So why does Savage get bashed for it? That sounds irrational, which is weird as this site is called RATIONALwiki. ^{— Unsigned, by: 66.81.163.44 / talk / contribs}

You thought [sic] wrong.   ^Contribs_Talk 23:02, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

This isn't a leftist website. Its a rational website. Thus things that have no scientific credibility and those that follow them are irrational. It is just a coincidence that many people who agree with the scientific method are "leftists". (I am one certainly, and proud of it, but there is also a blossoming libertarian community here on RW)--Damo2353 23:48, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

What's irrational about disliking medical quackery as well as hatemongering lunatics? --Gulik 00:53, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

It's pretty simple. Herbalism is pharma research's retarded little brother. Honest herbalists are pharma researchers, plain and simple, just like an honest psychic is called a magician and an honest chiropractor is little more than a highly specialized massage therapist. No politics about it. EVDebs 03:15, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Autism

I think there should be a mention of what he said about autism. --68.46.38.68 00:14, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

I think you are right. tmtoulouse ^oppress 00:15, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

(EC) And what was that? ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 00:16, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

"They don't have a father around to tell them, 'Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life,' " Savage said during his show. " 'Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, you idiot.' " tmtoulouse ^oppress 00:17, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

I see. Can we just replace the article with "Is a bastard"? ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 00:20, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

I am going to forgo my usual prudness and call him a bigoted, hating, stupid, <mutters illegiable stream of words and various other sound effects>. Dang his guts! That is. . . the idea that we go around screaming makes me want to cause him physical damage- very painfully, very slowly, and as viciously as possible. This guy is to bad to be a bitch. --"CUR^talk 21:40, 7 February 2009 (EST)

We could but I think such quotes as this almost make the point better. I am all for adding the information to the article but I have been chastised enough for one night :). tmtoulouse ^oppress 00:29, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

I registered now[the one letter name was a mess up on my part...] and added the comment. --S 20:49, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Sueing the British Government

Just added a note on the lulz about this. Good luck with that one Mike! Crundy 11:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

His Books

I've read two of them. One could be called humorous. You would be wrong to call it that, but it tries(badly). The other was worse the Limbaugh's books. Both of them. Combined. At least Limbaugh doesn't want to kill that many people, and go into graphic detail.--Tyrannis (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)